Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Jesus wasn't walking with Dinosaurs. Bring your creationist crap elsewhere Scott.
You have a vial of water. You shine a laser beam through it and measure the absorption. You now increase the level of carbon dioxide and perform the same measurement. You measure an increased rate of absorption. Conclusion: carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation.
Then:
You measure the rate at which humans pump carbon dioxide into the air and the levels in the oceans where it could be sunk. You calculate a net increase in total atmospheric carbon which corresponds with what you measure. Conclusion: atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are increasing due to human interference.
Together those two conclusions lead one to conclude: the atmosphere will absorb more infrared light due to increased carbon dioxide levels.
How is that inductive or probabilistic? Measurement error? Give me a break. That is a deterministic, and deductive chain. You need to argue that this is probabilistic, not merely assert it.
There are two possible conclusions:
1. You do not know what inductive or probabilistic means.
2. You do know, but have no interest in real dialogue.
Seriously!!!!!!!
You are mistaking a sign argument for a causal argument. It doesn't mean there isn't a cause it means that the cause you are proposing (carbon) is probabilistic. That means it may or may not be the cause and that you do not have the warrant (argument scheme) to be so convinced of your correctness.
There \are a lot of factors that could account for the weather. In fact there are at least ten factors that are even more significant than carbon.
I disagree, see above.
It's you two that can't figure out what I'm saying.
Again with the straw man!!!!
That the Earth is round and that life evolves are both fact. Don't try and confuse those with your hocus pocus ad hoc argument. :roll:
Again, this is a straw man argument.
GW is probabilistic not factual.
Just because you want to believe in it doesn't mean it is fact. It is just one possibility.
I'll let you nay, yea-sayer figure this out.
Paw prints of a grizzly were found last year on Melville Island, about 620 miles (1,000 kilometers) north of the Arctic Circle. DNA evidence obtained from the beast's hair confirms it was a grizzly, scientists said Tuesday.
No grizzly has ever been seen so far north.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050309_grizly_north.html
Paw prints of a grizzly were found last year on Melville Island, about 620 miles (1,000 kilometers) north of the Arctic Circle. DNA evidence obtained from the beast's hair confirms it was a grizzly, scientists said Tuesday.
No grizzly has ever been seen so far north.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050309_grizly_north.html
In a vial of water, it probably does in the air too, but who knows, you would need a better experiment. Also the atmosphere is more complicated than that and has many cycles and systems that capture and release heat. Those would have to be ruled out.
This isn't certain since you cannot be sure you have accounted for new and unknown sources.
Also you are begging the question because you are assuming human influence to prove human influence. There is no room for error that is the experiment can't invalidate itself. It is only a measurement and therefore any conclusions will be correlative and inductive.
No, you can conclude that about a vial of water. Your assumptions are correlative and inductive. They prove nothing.
It is probabilistic because it doesn't control for other factors that could also be absorbing heat such as the natural atmospheric conditions that account for regular cycles and variation. You just assume human interference and so measure for it, yell ah ha! when you find it but, unfortunately, that doesn't mean it exists.
And yet another fine example of your powers of deduction lmao :lol:
Last edited:
No, there is no other cause for absorbed heat in a tube where the only cchanged variable is carbon dioxide. It is causation. You can't seem to understand this simple, and observable fact. Thjat is causation. There is no lightining in a controlled lab experiment, no changing irradience, no altered albedo of the tube. The atmosphere inside the tube is more opaque to infra-red radiation.
What is it about this controlled experiment that you can't comprehend? You either can show us where this fails or you can't. So far, you're failing and resorting to rhetoric. That is not a scientific argument.
Citation. Your 'at least ten' is a pretty specific assertion. Let's see your proof.
That is not a strawman. I'm equating your steadfast hold to a notion that has been shown to be fallacious to creationist and flat earth tactics. If you don't like that, maybe you should re-examine your position. It is no different.
The opnly purpose of my argument you've quoted in this post is to equate you with those you deride in other threads.
Deal with it. You're no different than a creationist. All you have is rhetoric, and your pathetic memes.
Solopsistic delusions.
You can compute a priori the absorption coefficients of carbon dioxide using quantum mechanics. The example of a test tube filled with carbon dioxide is supposed to be easily understood and easily reproducible while catching the major details, which it accomplishes.
You should stop accusing people of fallacies you do not understand. That we pump carbon dioxide into the air is a fact, not an assumption. That the predicted levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide coincide with the measured is a confirmation which could have invalidated the hypothesis that the human interference is significant and not self correcting. The measurement of oceanic CO2 is to account for the natural increase; that one cannot account for the measured atmospheric measurement without both is proof that the human action is significant. The atmospheric measurement sets the hypothesis up for invalidation and it passes.
You are all buzz words and no comprehension.
You should stop accusing people of fallacies you do not understand. That we pump carbon dioxide into the air is a fact, not an assumption. That the predicted levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide coincide with the measured is a confirmation which could have invalidated the hypothesis that the human interference is significant and not self correcting. The measurement of oceanic CO2 is to account for the natural increase; that one cannot account for the measured atmospheric measurement without both is proof that the human action is significant. The atmospheric measurement sets the hypothesis up for invalidation and it passes.
You are all buzz words and no comprehension.
Global Warming: On Hold?: Discovery News
Well it looks like GW is on hold for at least 30 years. But fear not... they say after 30 years it is going to come back with a vegeance. The sad part is that you folks will have to wait before you can start up again.
Well it looks like GW is on hold for at least 30 years. But fear not... they say after 30 years it is going to come back with a vegeance. The sad part is that you folks will have to wait before you can start up again.
It seems Islam and Christianity has nothing on this GW religion.
Who knew hippies could be such fanatics. :lol:
Anyway, Re: Tonka head and that other guy: obviously neither of you are interested in the truth. You have agendas and you mean to push them on everyone else. You cannot accept a reasonable rebuttal or entertain for a moment that your precious GW might be wrong. It is laughable and pathetic. I have grown tired of arguing with fanatics. At least some fanatics here don't maliciously seek to mislead and distort truth. There is something to be said for sincerity and IMO is an element that must be preseant in a discoarse if truth is to be discovered. So have fun worrshiping at the temple of Al Gore and when all this GW has been debunked just remember: I told you so.
Who knew hippies could be such fanatics. :lol:
Anyway, Re: Tonka head and that other guy: obviously neither of you are interested in the truth. You have agendas and you mean to push them on everyone else. You cannot accept a reasonable rebuttal or entertain for a moment that your precious GW might be wrong. It is laughable and pathetic. I have grown tired of arguing with fanatics. At least some fanatics here don't maliciously seek to mislead and distort truth. There is something to be said for sincerity and IMO is an element that must be preseant in a discoarse if truth is to be discovered. So have fun worrshiping at the temple of Al Gore and when all this GW has been debunked just remember: I told you so.
Scott, you have the scientific understanding of a turnip. That's about as charitable as I can be with your demonstrated understanding of the physics.
Your criticism can be roundly debunked because it's not based on any evidence. No matter what evidence is given, you find some rhetorical device that suits your purpose to criticize that which you don't understand. You have your buzz words, which among your circle of friends probably makes you sound quite smart. But to anyone who has studied very basic science, they sound like the ignorant rantings of a crackpot.
So, go forward, carry on as you do, be a hypocrite when you troll the religious folk here. I really find it pretty funny. You obviously are not looking for truth. You can't even accept simple causal relationship. If you can't accept that, there's not much point to entertaining your infantile questioning.
Have a nice day.
Your criticism can be roundly debunked because it's not based on any evidence. No matter what evidence is given, you find some rhetorical device that suits your purpose to criticize that which you don't understand. You have your buzz words, which among your circle of friends probably makes you sound quite smart. But to anyone who has studied very basic science, they sound like the ignorant rantings of a crackpot.
So, go forward, carry on as you do, be a hypocrite when you troll the religious folk here. I really find it pretty funny. You obviously are not looking for truth. You can't even accept simple causal relationship. If you can't accept that, there's not much point to entertaining your infantile questioning.
Have a nice day.
April 8, 2009
Conservationists hope a hot summer will rescue British butterflies
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter
Two cool and wet summers in a row have left butterfly numbers at their lowest for more than a quarter of a century.
One species, the high brown fritillary, has almost died out in Britain and several others have suffered dramatic slumps.
For a dozen species, last year was the worst on record and conservationists fear that they could suffer long-term damage if there is a third dire summer this year.
Even butterflies that were once common garden visitors, such as orange-tips and the small tortoiseshell, are among those to have suffered significant declines.
The weather has had such an impact because heavy rain, of which there was plenty in the summers of 2007 and 2008, prevents butterflies from flying to find mates or to reach the flowers that supply them with nectar. Similarly, butterflies need the Sun in order to become fully active.
Several species, especially those that rely on specific types of habitat, have been in decline for years and the bad weather has intensified the pressure already on them from habitat loss and other human impacts. Cooler conditions makes it harder for them to become active.
High brown fritillaries, which are now restricted to fewer than 50 colonies, are the species in greatest danger of dying out in Britain, closely followed by wood whites and Duke of Burgundy fritillaries, which exist in fewer than 100 colonies.
“They are the big three at UK level,” said Tom Brereton, of Butterfly Conservation, which surveyed butterfly numbers in partnership with the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. “The weather has been a significant problem for some of the most threatened species — 2007 was bad, 2008 was even worse. We just hope that this year we don’t have another dire summer and that butterfly numbers are able to recover.
“If we have a nice sunny year with only bouts of rain, some species will bounce back, but some have got to such a low ebb on some sites we’re not sure if it has tipped them over the edge.”
Conservationists hope a hot summer will rescue British butterflies
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter
Two cool and wet summers in a row have left butterfly numbers at their lowest for more than a quarter of a century.
One species, the high brown fritillary, has almost died out in Britain and several others have suffered dramatic slumps.
For a dozen species, last year was the worst on record and conservationists fear that they could suffer long-term damage if there is a third dire summer this year.
Even butterflies that were once common garden visitors, such as orange-tips and the small tortoiseshell, are among those to have suffered significant declines.
The weather has had such an impact because heavy rain, of which there was plenty in the summers of 2007 and 2008, prevents butterflies from flying to find mates or to reach the flowers that supply them with nectar. Similarly, butterflies need the Sun in order to become fully active.
Several species, especially those that rely on specific types of habitat, have been in decline for years and the bad weather has intensified the pressure already on them from habitat loss and other human impacts. Cooler conditions makes it harder for them to become active.
High brown fritillaries, which are now restricted to fewer than 50 colonies, are the species in greatest danger of dying out in Britain, closely followed by wood whites and Duke of Burgundy fritillaries, which exist in fewer than 100 colonies.
“They are the big three at UK level,” said Tom Brereton, of Butterfly Conservation, which surveyed butterfly numbers in partnership with the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. “The weather has been a significant problem for some of the most threatened species — 2007 was bad, 2008 was even worse. We just hope that this year we don’t have another dire summer and that butterfly numbers are able to recover.
“If we have a nice sunny year with only bouts of rain, some species will bounce back, but some have got to such a low ebb on some sites we’re not sure if it has tipped them over the edge.”
Hot air over greenhouse gases
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
Last Updated: 9th April 2009, 3:04am
Every time Canadian politicians tell you we can grow the economy while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions, remember this.
They are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
My favourite example was Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty promising to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to fight global warming, while simultaneously boasting about using taxpayers' money to subsidize the production of GM's Camaro muscle car in Oshawa.
That's the intellectual equivalent of promoting clean air while sucking on a tail pipe.
The latest evidence greenhouse gas reductions and recession go hand in hand is that for the first time since it was created in January, 2005, Europe's cap-and-trade market, the Emissions Trading Scheme, has reported carbon dioxide emissions of major European industrial emitters dropped in 2008, just as the global recession hit.
Prior to that, despite the fact the purpose of cap-and-trade is to reduce emissions, they went UP in 2005, 2006 and 2007, logical considering that the European Union and its member states initially gave out (for free) more emission permits to industry than their actual emissions.
You see, the idea is to give out fewer permits (the "cap" in cap-and-trade), auction them (so companies don't ask for more than they need) and then use that money to further reduce emissions, none of which the EU did.
Believe it
If you're having trouble believing politicians could be that stupid (a) yes, they can (b) these are the same folks claiming they can "fix" the climate and (c) cap-and-trade is on its way to North America.
In Europe, even though companies got the permits for free, they passed along the costs to consumers as if they had paid for them. Guess what happened to electricity prices?
The link between lower emissions and recession goes back to the creation of the Kyoto accord, when its drafters retroactively and deliberately chose 1990 as the base year for reducing emissions.
That transformed Russia, an environmental disaster area whose support was needed to bring Kyoto into legal effect, into a global "leader" in reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- not because of anything it did, but because its economy collapsed post-1990, after the fall of communism and the Berlin Wall.
In other words, Russia became a "leader" in fighting global warming, with billions of dollars worth of "hot air" to sell to other nations, because its economy went into recession at the retroactively "right" moment chosen by Kyoto's drafters.
Such are the accounting tricks and shell games (carbon credits are another) on which Kyoto is built.
A recession is the only effective way we have to lower carbon dioxide emissions at present because we lack the technological ability to stop them from entering the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels and renewable energy isn't at the technological stage where it can be a viable replacement.
Claims
That's why the things politicians claim will reduce emissions -- carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, carbon credits/offsets, don't.
What they really do is allow emissions, at ever-escalating prices, the theory being that when the price gets too high, people will be forced to use less fossil fuel energy.
Only thing is, the more you make people spend on energy, the less they have to spend on everything else, leading to more economic contraction, meaning fewer greenhouse gases.
Which is great -- if you like recessions. Otherwise, not so much.
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
Last Updated: 9th April 2009, 3:04am
Every time Canadian politicians tell you we can grow the economy while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions, remember this.
They are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
My favourite example was Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty promising to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to fight global warming, while simultaneously boasting about using taxpayers' money to subsidize the production of GM's Camaro muscle car in Oshawa.
That's the intellectual equivalent of promoting clean air while sucking on a tail pipe.
The latest evidence greenhouse gas reductions and recession go hand in hand is that for the first time since it was created in January, 2005, Europe's cap-and-trade market, the Emissions Trading Scheme, has reported carbon dioxide emissions of major European industrial emitters dropped in 2008, just as the global recession hit.
Prior to that, despite the fact the purpose of cap-and-trade is to reduce emissions, they went UP in 2005, 2006 and 2007, logical considering that the European Union and its member states initially gave out (for free) more emission permits to industry than their actual emissions.
You see, the idea is to give out fewer permits (the "cap" in cap-and-trade), auction them (so companies don't ask for more than they need) and then use that money to further reduce emissions, none of which the EU did.
Believe it
If you're having trouble believing politicians could be that stupid (a) yes, they can (b) these are the same folks claiming they can "fix" the climate and (c) cap-and-trade is on its way to North America.
In Europe, even though companies got the permits for free, they passed along the costs to consumers as if they had paid for them. Guess what happened to electricity prices?
The link between lower emissions and recession goes back to the creation of the Kyoto accord, when its drafters retroactively and deliberately chose 1990 as the base year for reducing emissions.
That transformed Russia, an environmental disaster area whose support was needed to bring Kyoto into legal effect, into a global "leader" in reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- not because of anything it did, but because its economy collapsed post-1990, after the fall of communism and the Berlin Wall.
In other words, Russia became a "leader" in fighting global warming, with billions of dollars worth of "hot air" to sell to other nations, because its economy went into recession at the retroactively "right" moment chosen by Kyoto's drafters.
Such are the accounting tricks and shell games (carbon credits are another) on which Kyoto is built.
A recession is the only effective way we have to lower carbon dioxide emissions at present because we lack the technological ability to stop them from entering the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels and renewable energy isn't at the technological stage where it can be a viable replacement.
Claims
That's why the things politicians claim will reduce emissions -- carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, carbon credits/offsets, don't.
What they really do is allow emissions, at ever-escalating prices, the theory being that when the price gets too high, people will be forced to use less fossil fuel energy.
Only thing is, the more you make people spend on energy, the less they have to spend on everything else, leading to more economic contraction, meaning fewer greenhouse gases.
Which is great -- if you like recessions. Otherwise, not so much.
The hysteria over ghg's and the arrogant idea that humanity has any kind of meaningful manner of 'controlling' the environment is by far and away, the biggest lie that's ever been told.
- Status